Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Double Murder Case, Modifies Sentencing: Shamim vs. State (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: September 19, 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 816

Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, J., Navin Sinha, J., K.M. Joseph, J.

Can an appellate court reverse a trial court’s acquittal based on the same evidence? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case involving a double murder and an attempted murder. The High Court had reversed the trial court’s acquittal of the appellant, leading to her conviction. This appeal challenged that reversal and the denial of remission in her sentence.

The core issue revolves around whether the High Court was justified in overturning the trial court’s decision and convicting the appellant, and whether the imposed sentence, which denied remission for 25 years, was appropriate. The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices Ranjan Gogoi, Navin Sinha, and K.M. Joseph, with the judgment authored by Justice Navin Sinha.

Case Background

On the night of March 27, 2006, Pappu and Anisha were fatally shot on the first floor of their residence. Heena, their mother/sister, sustained severe injuries to her neck from a razor. Ishrat Ali, the brother/son of the deceased and brother of Heena, is the complainant. Shabnam, the daughter of the appellant, had married Ishrat Ali against the appellant’s wishes. The families lived in houses opposite each other, separated by a narrow lane.

After their marriage, Ishrat Ali and Shabnam had moved to a different residence. On the night of the incident, Md. Imran, Ishrat Ali’s brother, saw the appellant outside his house, followed by other accused persons exiting the house with blood-stained clothes. Upon entering the house, he discovered the deceased and an injured Heena. He then informed Ishrat Ali and Shabnam, who arrived at the scene. Earlier that evening, Heena had noticed the appellant watching their house from her verandah. Shabnam testified that the appellant had told her that the incident was a consequence of her not listening to her, and that she had gotten the deceased killed and her husband would meet the same fate.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted four of the seven accused under Sections 449, 302, 307, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The appellant was acquitted due to a lack of conclusive evidence regarding her presence at the scene, failure to recover her blood-stained ‘chunni’ at the time of the incident, and the absence of evidence of conspiracy.

The High Court, in an appeal against the appellant’s acquittal, reassessed the evidence. The High Court attributed motive to the appellant, citing her strong opposition to the marriage between her daughter (PW-4) and Ishrat Ali (PW-1). The High Court considered the evidence of PW-2, the injured witness, as credible and reliable. Additionally, the recovery of a blood-stained lock and key and the appellant’s ‘chunni’ with blood stains, based on her disclosure, were considered crucial. Consequently, the High Court reversed the trial court’s acquittal and convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the application of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder.
  “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for attempt to murder.
  “Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.”
• Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
  “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that none of the prosecution witnesses testified to seeing blood on the appellant’s clothes.
• It was contended that there was no conclusive evidence to establish a common intention on the part of the appellant, as her presence at the scene of the assault was not definitively proven.
• Given the proximity of the houses, the appellant’s presence on her own verandah before and after the incident was natural and should not lead to an inference of guilt.
• The appellant could not have been present at both the scene of the crime and her own house simultaneously.
• Merely standing outside the house of the deceased is insufficient to infer a common intention.
• The testimony of PW-2 was unreliable due to its late recording and inconsistencies, including additions and alterations.
• If the trial court’s acquittal was a possible view based on the evidence, the High Court should not have reversed it. Reliance was placed on Chandrappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka [(2007) 4 SCC 415].
• The appellant should not have been denied the benefit of remission before twenty-five years.

State’s Arguments:

• The State’s counsel argued that the High Court’s order was well-considered and based on a proper reappreciation of the evidence.
• PW-4, the appellant’s daughter, testified against her own mother, which should be given significant weight.
• PW-2, being an injured witness, should be considered highly credible.
• The presence of the appellant was established by the testimonies of PW-2 and PW-3.
• The appellant’s disclosure led to the recovery of the blood-stained lock and key, as well as her ‘chunni’ with blood stains.
• The trial court’s conclusion to the contrary was perverse.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.
2. Whether the High Court was justified in denying the benefit of remission to the appellant for twenty-five years.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Chandrappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka [(2007) 4 SCC 415]: The Court acknowledged the principles laid down in this case regarding the limitations of an appellate court while interfering with an order of acquittal.

✓ State of U.P. vs. Krishna Master & Ors., [(2010) 12 SCC 324]: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that a child witness’s testimony should not be doubted merely because of the child’s age.

✓ Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court applied this section to establish the appellant’s liability for the criminal acts done in furtherance of a common intention.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the credibility of the injured witness (PW-2), the testimony of the appellant’s daughter (PW-4), and the recovery of incriminating evidence based on the appellant’s disclosure. The Court found the High Court’s reappreciation of evidence to be correct, emphasizing that the trial court had misappreciated the evidence. The Court also noted that while minor discrepancies in witness statements are normal, they do not undermine the credibility of the witness if the core of the testimony remains consistent. The court also emphasised that the testimony of a child witness is reliable.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a careful consideration of the factual evidence presented, including the testimonies of key witnesses and the recovery of physical evidence. The legal framework, particularly Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was applied to establish the appellant’s culpability based on her common intention with the other accused.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the argument that the appellant’s presence on her verandah was natural, but found that her actions, including her threats and the recovery of evidence based on her disclosure, indicated a common intention. The Court also considered the minor inconsistencies in PW-2’s testimony but concluded that they did not undermine her credibility as a reliable witness. The Court rejected the argument that the High Court should not have reversed the trial court’s possible view, stating that the High Court had correctly reappreciated the evidence and found the trial court’s conclusion to be perverse.

The Court stated that, “In a criminal trial, normally the evidence of the wife, husband, son or daughter of the deceased, is given great weightage on the principle that there is no reason for them not to speak the truth and shield the real culprit.” and further stated that, “It would require great courage of conviction and moral strength for a daughter to depose against her own mother who is an accused.”

The Supreme Court also stated that, “The duty of a judge presiding over a criminal trial is not merely to see that no innocent person is punished, but also to see that a guilty person does not escape. One is as important as the other.”

The Court modified the sentencing, stating that there was no justification to single out the appellant for differential treatment regarding remission, especially since she was convicted with the aid of Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to reverse the trial court’s acquittal, emphasizing the importance of thorough reappreciation of evidence by appellate courts.
• The testimony of an injured witness carries significant weight, and minor inconsistencies do not negate their credibility if the core of their testimony is consistent.
• The testimony of a close relative against another close relative, such as a daughter against her mother, is given reverse weightage, indicating a higher likelihood of truthfulness.
• The recovery of incriminating evidence based on the disclosure of the accused is a crucial factor in establishing guilt.
• Sentencing should be consistent, and differential treatment should not be given without specific reasons, especially when the conviction is based on common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Child witnesses are reliable and their testimony should be given due consideration.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s direction denying remission to the appellant for twenty-five years. The appellant will now be eligible for remission as per the applicable rules.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that an appellate court is justified in reversing a trial court’s acquittal if it finds that the trial court has misappreciated the evidence and that the appellate court has correctly reappreciated the evidence. The court also emphasized that the testimony of an injured witness and the testimony of a child witness is reliable, and that the testimony of a close relative against another close relative is given reverse weightage. Additionally, the court clarified that sentencing should be consistent, and differential treatment should not be given without specific reasons, especially when the conviction is based on common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. There was no change in the previous position of law, but the Supreme Court reinforced existing principles.

Conclusion

In Smt. Shamim vs. State (GNCT of Delhi), the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for murder and attempted murder, affirming the High Court’s decision to reverse the trial court’s acquittal. The Court found the evidence, particularly the testimony of the injured witness and the appellant’s daughter, along with the recovery of incriminating evidence, sufficient to establish her guilt. The Supreme Court modified the sentencing, setting aside the denial of remission for twenty-five years, thereby allowing the appellant to be eligible for remission as per the applicable rules. The judgment reinforces the principles of appellate review, witness credibility, and consistency in sentencing.

Category

• Criminal Law
  • Murder
  • Attempt to Murder
  • Common Intention
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Evidence Law
  • Witness Testimony
  • Injured Witness
  • Child Witness
  • Reverse Weightage
  • Extra-Judicial Confession
• Sentencing
  • Remission
  • Differential Treatment
• Appellate Review
  • Reappreciation of Evidence
  • Reversal of Acquittal

FAQ

Q: What does this judgment mean for how courts handle evidence?
A: This judgment reinforces that courts should give significant weight to the testimony of injured witnesses and that minor inconsistencies do not negate their credibility if the core of their testimony is consistent. It also emphasizes that the testimony of a child witness is reliable.

Q: What is “reverse weightage” in witness testimony?
A: Reverse weightage means that when a close relative testifies against another close relative, the court gives more weight to their testimony, assuming they are more likely to be telling the truth because it requires courage to testify against a family member.

Q: What is the significance of the recovery of evidence based on the accused’s disclosure?
A: If an accused person’s disclosure leads to the recovery of incriminating evidence, this is a strong indicator of their involvement in the crime.

Q: Can an appellate court overturn a trial court’s decision? A: Yes, an appellate court can overturn a trial court’s decision if it finds that the trial court misappreciated the evidence and the appellate court has correctly reappreciated the evidence.

Q: What is common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
A: Common intention means that multiple people commit a criminal act with a shared goal. Each person is liable as if they did the act alone.

Q: What are the implications of this case for sentencing?
A: This case highlights that sentencing should be consistent, and differential treatment should not be given without specific reasons, especially when the conviction is based on common intention.